Distinctive role of region-specific institutions in regional entrepreneurship patterns: evidence from Turkish regions

ABSTRACT

There are substantial differences in the entrepreneurship levels of different regions. Recent studies have shown that supply- and demand-side determinants fall short of explaining the level and type of entrepreneurship of a region, and have emphasized the critical role of region-specific institutional factors in regional entrepreneurship. This paper aims to contribute to understanding how region-specific institutions encourage or inhibit regional innovative entrepreneurship, concentrating particularly on the less studied normative and cultural-cognitive institutions. The study, based on face-to-face semi-structured in-depth interview data from four regions of Turkey with different innovative entrepreneurship patterns, reveals the significant role of normative institutions in defining different regional innovative entrepreneurship pathways, as well as those of some regulative and cultural-cognitive institutions. It highlights further that policies and regulations that alleviate bureaucratic procedures facilitate access to financial resources and strengthen coordination between local government agencies are encouraging regional entrepreneurship in general, while policies aimed at eliminating discrimination in society, supporting tolerance and openness, encouraging individual freedom and enhancing the skills and experience of entrepreneurs through new role models are critical for alleviating the disadvantages of regions and supporting innovative entrepreneurship. We contend that these policies are essential for improving the entrepreneurship environment and altering the perception of society regarding entrepreneurship.

KEYWORDS:

• Institutions
• regulative
• normative
• cultural-cognitive
• innovative entrepreneurship
• regions

View correction statement:

Correction

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2023.2218229)

Notes

1 According to the Eurostat Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS), the provinces in Turkey are classified at the NUTS 3 level. Accordingly, the terms ‘province’ and ‘region’ can be used interchangeably when writing about the cases.

2 Investigating how the regulative dimension of institutions determines the level and type of entrepreneurship in 48 states of the United States, based on the Economic Freedom of North America index.

3 The total innovation activity rates of each province are calculated based on a data set containing the number of patents, trademarks, industrial designs and utility model applications, obtained from the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TPTO). This ratio, which is calculated by dividing the sum of all these activities by 100,000 people, also represents the innovative entrepreneurship activity levels of the regions.

Second, the entrepreneurship rate for each region is determined by dividing the number of new firm births, obtained from the Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey (TOBB), by 1000 people.

4 The similar cases are Kayseri, Gaziantep, Konya Eskişehir and Bursa, which similar population sizes.

5 Under this incentive scheme, the amount and duration of support received by a province varies considerably depending on the regional classification of the province. The 81 provinces in the country are divided into six different regions based on their socio-economic development rankings. Within this classification, the provinces in the 1st Region are the most developed, and include İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir, among others, while those in 6th Region are the least developed, and include Van, Hakkari, Muş, etc.

6 While the local government in Van was under the administration of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), the local government in Adana first passed to the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and then to the Republican People’s Party (CHP). The national government is the Justice and Development Party (AKP).

7 (a) Başoğlu Kablo has been operating in many fields, including construction, white goods, lighting, glass manufacture, automotive, rail systems, etc., since 1980. It was the first company in Turkey to manufacture US UL-approved silicone and PVC cables. (b) Erpiliç, which launched white meat production with 200 chicks in 1969, continues its activities today with 2300 employees, 1300 producers and 70 dealers. (c) Beypiliç, which launched operations in 1979 for the production of mixed feed, has been one of the 100 largest companies in the country since 1987 in white meat production.